Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[Wahalla]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
It was interesting to me to read, in a book about Africa and genealodgy, that the DNA among those of African descent is far more diverse than that of Caucasians...which led me to the conclusion that lighter skinned peoples were probably driven out of Africa by virtue of prejudice,

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you projecting the limited prejudices of your own experience in the US on the world ????? Examine the causes of migratory patterns would demonstrate that all migratory patterns have at their base the same root cause.. Competition for resources...

[JCOURT]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

You could be correct and that migratory patterns for resources was the cause for migration, although it is just as easy to envision that lighter skinned people would be rejected as "abnormal" (as well they should have been viewed in that day and age) and this banished. We will bener know -- although we DO know that we all had origins in Africa and somehow became fragmented. I have no desire to continue the fragmentation or discord, but simply offer a hopeful solution to a part of the inequities generated over time.

My apologies if you misinterpreted my post.

[Wahalla]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly the US is looking for less expensive labor outlets -- anad JA is looking to bring in jobs... so perhaps an arrangement akin to Puerto Rico's arrangement could be arranged -- retaining independence, yet obtaining the benefits that accompany affiliation with the US. The greater question if what has G.B. done for you lately?? As far as I can see, the answer is NOTHING. So, join the U.S (I know easier said than done, but worth considering), and get the benefits of doing so as P.R. has done.i

It's worth some thought anyway, don't you think?


[/ QUOTE ]

No its not....

In 1776 the US first congress sent a representative to the BWI to beg the local legistlatures to join them.. They were refused... It was probably the only good thing that happened in BWI since the arrival of the Europeans till the 1st of August 1838.... And probably the only thing they did I agreed with... I suggest that you learn more of our history, our poltics, our outlook at life and our policies ... I refrain from furhter comment as in the past people from the US do tend to take mild critique of any of their hegmonic suggestions as a call to attack... And for the record I am Anti Kanadian....

[Wahalla]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
You could be correct and that migratory patterns for resources was the cause for migration, although it is just as easy to envision that lighter skinned people would be rejected as "abnormal" (as well they should have been viewed in that day and age) and this banished. We will bener know -- although we DO know that we all had origins in Africa and somehow became fragmented. I have no desire to continue the fragmentation or discord, but simply offer a hopeful solution to a part of the inequities generated over time.

My apologies if you misinterpreted my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not misinterpre your post. How can you apologise for my thought process ????

Actually it is not easier to envison your theory of light skinned people being viewed as abnormal. and banished.

I beleive that a simple examination of the evolutionary pattern of humans would spot the fallasy at the center of your thesis... again. Even thinking of it inutively should demonstrate that what you suggest is a fallasy and it is extremely dangerous fallasy at that.. It is one that is crude and actually is one of the theories of eugenics that was postulated post Darwin in Europe.

Your assumption of cultural divions based on the content of Melanin is actually a misnomer that has evolved in post Fuedal Europe...

[niceniss]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
You could be correct and that migratory patterns for resources was the cause for migration, although it is just as easy to envision that lighter skinned people would be rejected as "abnormal" (as well they should have been viewed in that day and age) and this banished. We will bener know -- although we DO know that we all had origins in Africa and somehow became fragmented. I have no desire to continue the fragmentation or discord, but simply offer a hopeful solution to a part of the inequities generated over time.

My apologies if you misinterpreted my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

People, like other living forms, evolve. Appearances are heavily influenced by climate and geograpghy. Go to Jamaica and visit the fishing areas and look at how different they look from other jamaicans further inland. You will notice that most have their skin take on a permanent coppertone and their hair tend to be curly blond or blondish in some parts. yes, same black skinned african descented Jamaicans living in Jamaica.

consider that when some africans left to colder climates their pigments adjusted as did their hair. someone mention to me recently that most whites dont use hair moisterizers like blacks need to because they produce oil(and aparently they need to wash their hair alot more often than we do).
We all know that winter has a drying effect on hair and skin hence the body adjusting itself to fit nature...

[Q3210]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

so yu feel yu body adjusting to the temperate climate of North weh yu deh now? Yu hair getting less kinky and yu skin more lightly, evolving to enviroment in time.

[niceniss]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
so yu feel yu body adjusting to the temperate climate of North weh yu deh now? Yu hair getting less kinky and yu skin more lightly, evolving to enviroment in time.

[/ QUOTE ]
*kissteet* [img]/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img] evolution takes generations and thousands of years.

What, yuh noh like the allusion that africans are the original peoples?

[Blackstar*]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly the US is looking for less expensive labor outlets -- anad JA is looking to bring in jobs... so perhaps an arrangement akin to Puerto Rico's arrangement could be arranged -- retaining independence, yet obtaining the benefits that accompany affiliation with the US. The greater question if what has G.B. done for you lately?? As far as I can see, the answer is NOTHING. So, join the U.S (I know easier said than done, but worth considering), and get the benefits of doing so as P.R. has done.

It's worth some thought anyway, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and I would take up arms to defeat this foolishness or die trying.

I'd rather be a free man in my grave,
than living as a puppet or a slave.

BTW, did you know that Puerto Rico has "benefitted" from welfare more than any other state or territory?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Dyoll 73,

I don't think you can show me more than one or two heavily indebted Third World (lacking in resources) countries wherein capitalism has done much to alleviate the chronic and, in most cases, worsening poverty.

Capitalism does not and cannot provide free education in the poor Third World. Capitalism does not and cannot provide free universal healthcare in the Third World. To the contrary, it creates the economic stratification that results in 25-80% of Third Worlders being denied adequate education and healthcare.

Your notion of nationalizing resources such as Jamaica's bauxite is a good one but if you will recall Michael Manley caught hell for merely calling for an increase in Jamaica's share of the money Alcan and Reynolds get from exploiting Jamaica's bauxite.

Similarly countries like Guatemala who tried to reclaim their own resources had their governments overturned by the United States for trying it.

You cannot create a "vibrant private sector" without the resources to do so and in Jamaica which pays out about 60% of it's money to foreign banks, the money to create those human and natural resources simply isnot there and will not be there for the forseeable future.

Further, even a "vibrant private sector" will create only a relative handful of jobs in a Third World situation. It cannot eliminate the endemic corruption and in fact will exacerbate it.

The United States is recognized as the richest and most advanced capitalist/private sector country in the world and IT has a poverty rate of about 25%.
How can that sort of capitalism do much of anything in a country that not only lacks the resources of the U.S but which owes half it's income to the bank.

I can point to Cuba as an example of how to raise the standard of living in the Third World.
You on the other hand can only call on wishful private sector thinking that has not and cannot work in the Third World.
Finally, calling for more foreign investment/ownership of Jamaican land, resources, labor is only calling for the situation to worsen.

As I recall the Jockey plant that manufactured underwear for the U.S market cut it's worker's pay to the point where it was hardly worth it for the stitchers to show up for work. Plants can be run far more cheaply in China and Bangladesh.

The solution is not more or better capitalism.
Capitalism has been is and will continue to be the problem.

In the Third World where unequal distribution of goods and services as determined by a capitalist system creates the epidemic poverty and inhumane living conditions for billions in the world, you can't convince any thinking person that capitalism is also the cure.

[Q3210]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so yu feel yu body adjusting to the temperate climate of North weh yu deh now? Yu hair getting less kinky and yu skin more lightly, evolving to enviroment in time.

[/ QUOTE ]
*kissteet* [img]/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img] evolution takes generations and thousands of years.

What, yuh noh like the allusion that africans are the original peoples?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no not at all, just the phenomenon of evolution is all....gosh! why you ask a question like that? I am not into the knit picking about who was first second and third. It doesn`t matter. I didnt put a wager on it.

[niceniss]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so yu feel yu body adjusting to the temperate climate of North weh yu deh now? Yu hair getting less kinky and yu skin more lightly, evolving to enviroment in time.

[/ QUOTE ]
*kissteet* [img]/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img] evolution takes generations and thousands of years.

What, yuh noh like the allusion that africans are the original peoples?

[/ QUOTE ]

gosh! why you ask a question like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

me could ask you the same thing! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img]

a african textured hair me got! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img] fiesty bout "kinky" [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Johnycakes:

I don't entertain any hope of persuading you to see the benefits of a 'hybrid' economic model - away from the rigid over-simplified thinking evident in your incessant recommendation of socialism as the panacea for the problems of the 'third world.' You have been singing this monotonous tune for the past five years that you've been writing on this board. And you're still singing off key, unfortunately.

I can concede certain benefits of the welfare state - notably, greater access to education and unversal healthcare. You, on the other hand, are (I have to say) incapable of pointing to anything good about capitalism. It's time to take the blinders off. I had this debate with you a few years ago and it went nowhere. You are advocating a purely socialist system, which would obviously require public ownership of natural resources, and yet, in the same breath, you are saying that this will not be allowed by the capitalists and essesentially, this will not happen. You lossed me there. The system you are advocating will only make people equally poor in these countries.

[Q3210]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so yu feel yu body adjusting to the temperate climate of North weh yu deh now? Yu hair getting less kinky and yu skin more lightly, evolving to enviroment in time.

[/ QUOTE ]
*kissteet* [img]/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img] evolution takes generations and thousands of years.

What, yuh noh like the allusion that africans are the original peoples?

[/ QUOTE ]

gosh! why you ask a question like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

me could ask you the same thing! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img]

a african textured hair me got! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif[/img] fiesty bout "kinky" [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry to have offended you using the `wrong` word. didnt mean to be facety at all, you`re my friend.
Apologies to you Donnica.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Dyoll,

What was true five years ago is still true today; Cuba remains the one Third World country that is able to feed, clothe, house, educate, provide universal and excellent healthcare for ALL it's people.

You write that I am unable to say anything good about capitalism.
Well... In the Third World countries that have capitalism as their economic base, 12 million people starve to death every year and millions more die from AIDS, malaria and other curable or controlable diseases simply because they lack the money for not only the unaffordable AIDS medicines but things as cheap as a $2.00 mosquito net.

How in the world, how in the name of anything moral can I say anything good about that kind of system?
All one can say about capitalism is that it makes some small group at the top very rich and leaves 50-80% desperately poor.
What is more important than the well-being of children, of the people of the Earth?
In your book evidently it is the ability to become rich while others starve.

Your position is immoral and untenable.

As to my saying that those parasitic capitalists will not allow the Third World to escape their grasp, I also say that Cuba has made that escape and 11 million Cubans have a much better life despite the U.S war on it and its people than any other country in the Third World and a better life than the 50% of New Orleans children who live in poverty.
Venezuela, Bolivia are taking advantage of the paralyzed United States and are taking back their resources. Other countries in the Third World will most likely follow their lead and there is hope but a read through the interventionist history of the U.S. during the past hundred years or so does make my case for why other countries have not been able to take the Cuban or Venezuelan path to a better life for their people.

Whether feudal or neo-liberal, capitalism is unwilling and unable to provide a decent life for ALL people. It is not structured to do so but you seem unable to realize or accept that fact.
Socialism IS designed to provide for the people and those in need first and foremost. That is it's raison d 'etre.

As to socialism making all people poor, Cubans may not have much but not one is starving to death, not one is dying for lack of medical care , not one is illiterate , not one sleeps in the streets, not one has to worry about if their kids will live to be five years old.

In what way is capitalism superior except to make a handful at the top rich?

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Johnycakes:

I hope that poor, disease stricken 'third world' countries ignore your foolish advice to implement pure socialism in their countries. They will surely continue being poor. I am prepared to see a well-reasoned argument showing how a an impoverished country lacking in natural resources (no oil, bauxite, gold, diamonds, etc) can lift itself to prosperity using a pure socialist model. As for Cuba, where you live [img]/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img], the people may be educated and healthy (achievements I admire under socialism; I've said this many times before), but are they able to fully realize their potentials? I think not.

For you, providing greater access to education and securing decent health care for all citizens, and at the same time, facilitating a robust private sector as the engine of growth for the economy, thereby providing employment and revenues for the state, are competing notions. For me, these are compatible. Combining the best of both systems is the ONLY way for 'third world' countries to improve their conditions, not to cling exclusively to socialism or capitalism. The fact that one system may be flawed does not make the other system perfect. This has always been my position. With your 'straw man' arguments and oversimplications, you distort my position to one that favors crude capitalism without social programs designed to provide a equitable society. And yes, a equitable society is achievable under the system above. I suspect that you confuse the word equitable with equal. The state MUST ensure equality of all citiens before the law, and equal opportunities for ALL, but anything beyond that is false egalitarianism. If your arguments were strong enough, you wouldn't have to distort my positions to make them easier to attack. I find your tactics to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.